The Coronavirus Thread - Lockdown for at least 3 more weeks

Our sickness thing is more strict now as well. It's essentially the same kind of setup that Moggy has.

Isn't that more a problem with the places you work being shitty than the Bradford Score? To me it seems a reasonable system in practise to have an objective measurement of someone's sickness record.

An objective measure of someone's sickness record is just their sickness record, unmodified. Using some arbitrary formula to lend more weight to more short term absences over less long term absences is... pretty much a load of rubbish. Especially consider that the original intent of the Bradford factor is to measure the impact of absence on an organisation, not the honesty of the absent individual, and it's largely misapplied. Why should a measure of the impact of absence relate in any way to the discipline of employees?

OrangeRKN wrote:An objective measure of someone's sickness record is just their sickness record, unmodified. Using some arbitrary formula to lend more weight to more short term absences over less long term absences is... pretty much a load of rubbish. Especially consider that the original intent of the Bradford factor is to measure the impact of absence on an organisation, not the honesty of the absent individual, and it's largely misapplied. Why should a measure of the impact of absence relate in any way to the discipline of employees?

I guess if someone is a frequently high scorer on the measure of absence that it indicates they should be reviewed?

To be honest I just like the fact that I'm theory everyone should be treated the same and you can't have managers treating absence differently.

Hime wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:An objective measure of someone's sickness record is just their sickness record, unmodified. Using some arbitrary formula to lend more weight to more short term absences over less long term absences is... pretty much a load of rubbish. Especially consider that the original intent of the Bradford factor is to measure the impact of absence on an organisation, not the honesty of the absent individual, and it's largely misapplied. Why should a measure of the impact of absence relate in any way to the discipline of employees?

I guess if someone is a frequently high scorer on the measure of absence that it indicates they should be reviewed?

To be honest I just like the fact that I'm theory everyone should be treated the same and you can't have managers treating absence differently.

That doesn’t work in the real world though does it? Somebody who has underlying health problems should probably get more understanding than somebody who is 100% healthy.

The Bradford Score is lazy. It takes a formula and disregards any human aspect or any difficult decisions. Have a high score thanks to norovirus and then the Coronavirus? strawberry float you! We will treat you exactly the same as the person who rang in with a headache (that we all know was really a hangover). Do you have an issue with migraines? strawberry float off! You are as bad as hangover bloke!

Every workplace is different, the Bradford Score probably works in some places. But it is used in way too many workplaces just to punish people and discourage them from taking sick leave. Which is a bad thing for all of us, because diseases are going to spread much more easily when we use fear to force people into an office.

Hime wrote:I guess if someone is a frequently high scorer on the measure of absence that it indicates they should be reviewed?

To be honest I just like the fact that I'm theory everyone should be treated the same and you can't have managers treating absence differently.

But like, you already have the objective numbers of "total number of days absent" and "number of absences" that you could just as easily flag some threshold on in management to review the situation. Using a formula to translate those two measures with real meaning into one arbitrarily weighted score I just don't see any benefit to - but it runs the risk of convincing bad managers to trust in some pseudo-science measure rather than assessing the nuance of individual cases like they should.

If a company's HR policy is "we'll review your absences if they exceed x separate cases or y total days", that's just as useful and more honest than "we'll review your absences if your Bradford factor exceeds z"

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:An objective measure of someone's sickness record is just their sickness record, unmodified. Using some arbitrary formula to lend more weight to more short term absences over less long term absences is... pretty much a load of rubbish. Especially consider that the original intent of the Bradford factor is to measure the impact of absence on an organisation, not the honesty of the absent individual, and it's largely misapplied. Why should a measure of the impact of absence relate in any way to the discipline of employees?

I guess if someone is a frequently high scorer on the measure of absence that it indicates they should be reviewed?

To be honest I just like the fact that I'm theory everyone should be treated the same and you can't have managers treating absence differently.

That doesn’t work in the real world though does it? Somebody who has underlying health problems should probably get more understanding than somebody who is 100% healthy.

The Bradford Score is lazy. It takes a formula and disregards any human aspect or any difficult decisions. Have a high score thanks to norovirus and then the Coronavirus? strawberry float you! We will treat you exactly the same as the person who rang in with a headache (that we all know was really a hangover). Do you have an issue with migraines? strawberry float off! You are as bad as hangover bloke!

Every workplace is different, the Bradford Score probably works in some places. But it is used in way too many workplaces just to punish people and discourage them from taking sick leave. Which is a bad thing for all of us, because diseases are going to spread much more easily when we use fear to force people into an office.

Of course but you'd expect the person with underlying health problems to be treated differently anyway wouldn't you?

I still think that a work place that wants to discourage sick leave will do so anyway but I can sort of see the sense in a system that weights a number of absences as 14 separate counts of leave is more likely to require review than 14 days consecutively. Either way I think your companies method of financially penalising people for sickness is terrible.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Hime wrote:I guess if someone is a frequently high scorer on the measure of absence that it indicates they should be reviewed?

To be honest I just like the fact that I'm theory everyone should be treated the same and you can't have managers treating absence differently.

But like, you already have the objective numbers of "total number of days absent" and "number of absences" that you could just as easily flag some threshold on in management to review the situation. Using a formula to translate those two measures with real meaning into one arbitrarily weighted score I just don't see any benefit to - but it runs the risk of convincing bad managers to trust in some pseudo-science measure rather than assessing the nuance of individual cases like they should.

If a company's HR policy is "we'll review your absences if they exceed x separate cases or y total days", that's just as useful and more honest than "we'll review your absences if your Bradford factor exceeds z"

Wouldn't that essentially be the same thing though? I have no idea, I work in an industry that is strongly unionised so I'm probably a bit naive with this stuff.

Chocolate-Milk wrote:

Mini E wrote:One of my students missed my lecture because she was delayed flying home from somewhere with cases of coronavirus and she's asked for a tutorial to cover the content. RIP me.

For your consideration:

Quite. I went with the Skype suggestion in the end.

Hime wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:

Hime wrote:I guess if someone is a frequently high scorer on the measure of absence that it indicates they should be reviewed?

To be honest I just like the fact that I'm theory everyone should be treated the same and you can't have managers treating absence differently.

But like, you already have the objective numbers of "total number of days absent" and "number of absences" that you could just as easily flag some threshold on in management to review the situation. Using a formula to translate those two measures with real meaning into one arbitrarily weighted score I just don't see any benefit to - but it runs the risk of convincing bad managers to trust in some pseudo-science measure rather than assessing the nuance of individual cases like they should.

If a company's HR policy is "we'll review your absences if they exceed x separate cases or y total days", that's just as useful and more honest than "we'll review your absences if your Bradford factor exceeds z"

Wouldn't that essentially be the same thing though? I have no idea, I work in an industry that is strongly unionised so I'm probably a bit naive with this stuff.

It's not the same thing because the existence of the Bradford factor implies some significance and authority to its formula. In actuality there is no academic study, published research, or any such evidence supporting or giving rise to the Bradford factor. It's pseudo-science - an urban myth perpetuated by HR companies.

Hime wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hime wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:An objective measure of someone's sickness record is just their sickness record, unmodified. Using some arbitrary formula to lend more weight to more short term absences over less long term absences is... pretty much a load of rubbish. Especially consider that the original intent of the Bradford factor is to measure the impact of absence on an organisation, not the honesty of the absent individual, and it's largely misapplied. Why should a measure of the impact of absence relate in any way to the discipline of employees?

I guess if someone is a frequently high scorer on the measure of absence that it indicates they should be reviewed?

To be honest I just like the fact that I'm theory everyone should be treated the same and you can't have managers treating absence differently.

That doesn’t work in the real world though does it? Somebody who has underlying health problems should probably get more understanding than somebody who is 100% healthy.

The Bradford Score is lazy. It takes a formula and disregards any human aspect or any difficult decisions. Have a high score thanks to norovirus and then the Coronavirus? strawberry float you! We will treat you exactly the same as the person who rang in with a headache (that we all know was really a hangover). Do you have an issue with migraines? strawberry float off! You are as bad as hangover bloke!

Every workplace is different, the Bradford Score probably works in some places. But it is used in way too many workplaces just to punish people and discourage them from taking sick leave. Which is a bad thing for all of us, because diseases are going to spread much more easily when we use fear to force people into an office.

Of course but you'd expect the person with underlying health problems to be treated differently anyway wouldn't you?

I still think that a work place that wants to discourage sick leave will do so anyway but I can sort of see the sense in a system that weights a number of absences as 14 separate counts of leave is more likely to require review than 14 days consecutively. Either way I think your companies method of financially penalising people for sickness is terrible.

OR is putting it better than me, but the problem is that companies/HR departments/managers are not looking at the reasons, all they do is concentrate on the score itself.

If somebody has 14 separate absences, then you would hope that their manager would have an idea of why. If it is “hungover on a Monday” then they know that action needs to be taken. If it is “has cancer, sick from chemotherapy” then the manager should know that there is no action needed. To be fair I don’t know if my company would treat cancer the same as a hangover, but acknowledging this ruins my hyperbole.

The trouble by making it a score is that upper management and HR impose it on everyone. Because it is a “fair” way of treating everybody “equally” they end up actually penalising those who are genuine, while those playing the system can get around it by keeping an eye on their score and bunking off in other ways.

And 14 absences would be wonderful, my company is imposing harsh sanctions after 2 or 3 occurrences. Which is a real problem as people are coming in with norovirus, heavy colds and other assorted illnesses that I really don’t want to catch.

As a general tool the Bradford Score probably isn’t bad in and of itself. But as a firm rule, that applies to everybody equally, it is appalling.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Hime wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:

Hime wrote:I guess if someone is a frequently high scorer on the measure of absence that it indicates they should be reviewed?

To be honest I just like the fact that I'm theory everyone should be treated the same and you can't have managers treating absence differently.

But like, you already have the objective numbers of "total number of days absent" and "number of absences" that you could just as easily flag some threshold on in management to review the situation. Using a formula to translate those two measures with real meaning into one arbitrarily weighted score I just don't see any benefit to - but it runs the risk of convincing bad managers to trust in some pseudo-science measure rather than assessing the nuance of individual cases like they should.

If a company's HR policy is "we'll review your absences if they exceed x separate cases or y total days", that's just as useful and more honest than "we'll review your absences if your Bradford factor exceeds z"

Wouldn't that essentially be the same thing though? I have no idea, I work in an industry that is strongly unionised so I'm probably a bit naive with this stuff.

It's not the same thing because the existence of the Bradford factor implies some significance and authority to its formula. In actuality there is no academic study, published research, or any such evidence supporting or giving rise to the Bradford factor. It's pseudo-science - an urban myth perpetuated by HR companies.

I guess it depends how the score is used, if it's to apply punitive measures then it is of course a bad way of using the score. If it's used as a trigger for discussion to see if there is anything that can be done by the company to help an employee or just to highlight ongoing health issues then I think that's alright.

Does the Bradford Score take into account things like parents with young children?
Also what about people with genuine health issues that flare up at odd times like a bad back? Trying to force someone to work while in excruciating pain (I've suffered from a bad back in the past and if given the chance I'd rather get repeatedly kicked in the groin than go through that again) seems counterproductive.
I'd say I'm pretty healthy and had 3 days off last year in 2 periods and have had a Monday off this year with a migraine that I get and am basically unable to get out of bed.
I can understand if companies are trying to stop people taking days off for hangovers but I don't think it's fair to try and punish people for illnesses they have no control over.

Peter Crisp wrote:Does the Bradford Score take into account things like parents with young children?
Also what about people with genuine health issues that flare up at odd times like a bad back? Trying to force someone to work while in excruciating pain (I've suffered from a bad back in the past and if given the chance I'd rather get repeatedly kicked in the groin than go through that again) seems counterproductive.
I'd say I'm pretty healthy and had 3 days off last year in 2 periods and have had a Monday off this year with a migraine that I get and am basically unable to get out of bed.
I can understand if companies are trying to stop people taking days off for hangovers but I don't think it's fair to try and punish people for illnesses they have no control over.

The Bradford score doesn’t take anything into account. It is just a score based on how many times you have been off and how many days you have taken off. For us a score of 50 is a verbal warning and a loss of any right to bonus/reward for a year. A score of 100 is a written warning and also losing any chance of a payrise for a year.

For you, you’ve had 4 days in 3 occurrences, so your score would be 36 ((period x period) x number of days). Which wouldn’t be a bollocking at my place. But if you had just 1 more day, that would be 5 days in 4 occurrences (a score of 80) and would be a verbal warning and no bonus/rewards for a year.

If you had another 2 days, 6 days in 4 occurrences, then you would be on 96 which is right on the cusp of a written warning and no payrise for a year. And any other sickness in a year would result in a second written warning with the threat of dismissal.

The problem I have with that is that people's sickness doesn't run to a schedule.
Someone could have zero days off for years and then they go and get a few colds and are facing the prospect of the sack for having less overall time off than someone who just had the same time off over a longer period. Surely the HR person should be able to ask the supervisor of the individual and just ask if they feel it's a genuine illness or someone taking the piss?
As I said anyone with young children (or indeed any care giver) may need to have the day off to look after them and I just don't think having arbitrary rules is helpful and I'd say any company with that sort of attitude to staff isn't worth working for as they obviously don't give a gooseberry fool about them.

I'm sorry if that sounded like a personal attack, it isn't I just feel the whole Braford score idea is a stupid idea that should be done away with and simple sanity returned so that people aren't forced to work for companies they'll eventually come to despise because they have zero empathy.

Peter Crisp wrote:The problem I have with that is that people's sickness doesn't run to a schedule.
Someone could have zero days off for years and then they go and get a few colds and are facing the prospect of the sack for having less overall time off than someone who just had the same time off over a longer period. Surely the HR person should be able to ask the supervisor of the individual and just ask if they feel it's a genuine illness or someone taking the piss?
As I said anyone with young children (or indeed any care giver) may need to have the day off to look after them and I just don't think having arbitrary rules is helpful and I'd say any company with that sort of attitude to staff isn't worth working for as they obviously don't give a gooseberry fool about them.

I'm sorry if that sounded like a personal attack, it isn't I just feel the whole Braford score idea is a stupid idea that should be done away with and simple sanity returned so that people aren't forced to work for companies they'll eventually come to despise because they have zero empathy.

All that is true. My real concern is that it is forcing people into the office and they are then spreading illnesses around. I don’t blame them for doing it, it’s the stupid policy that forcing it and then risking my health.

I wonder if I could sue if I died of coronavirus?

Bit upset you're all having this conversation without me.

Repercussions after the second absence in a 12 month period?! What the strawberry float

23 suspected cases here now, up from 1 yesterday.



Also, I had to go to see someone at my university and now I have a scratchy throat, it was nice knowing you guys.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Bit upset you're all having this conversation without me.

Your fault you were absent

OrangeRKN wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Bit upset you're all having this conversation without me.

Your fault you were absent

Well I did hint in another thread at the exact same time the discussion was going on that I'd drunk too much wine the night before, so I think you're onto something here. The system is even smarter than we thought .